Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, and Rawls’ Theory of Justice
Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill
The normative principle that gives legitimacy to the laws is happiness, understood as pleasure, for as many people as possible. The difference between the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill is that while Bentham considered all forms of happiness at the same level, Mill argued that pleasures related to moral and intellectual development were superior to other forms of physical pleasure.
Utilitarianism raises two objections:
- It is conceivable that, sometimes, the happiness of the greatest number is achieved at the expense of the abuse of a minority. Justice seems to involve rights and duties that are not negotiable and cannot be violated even to satisfy the majority.
- The idea of a qualification of pleasures is not easily reconcilable with the democratic system. The description of pleasures, based on the desires they cause, leads to a qualification of desires as well. The desires for higher pleasures will be considered more valuable than the desires for lower pleasures.
Kantian Ethics: Universal Duty and Respect
According to Kant, older ethical systems pose a serious problem. If we say that what is good is what gives pleasure or happiness, we open the door to using others for our own pleasure or happiness. This morally justifies the instrumentalization of other people as means to achieve our goals, which does not seem quite right.
If we criticize the idea that what is good is what produces pleasure or happiness because it allows the manipulation of others, it is because people can never be mere means, but are ends in themselves, and as such we must respect them. Kant tells us that we need a universal duty to respect people.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice: Fairness and Equality
Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice using a variant of the familiar social contract. The resulting theory is known as “Justice as Fairness,” from which Rawls derives his two famous principles of justice: the principle of freedom and the principle of difference.
Procedural Approach
Idea of Justice as Fairness: Rawls believes a society will be fair if, in the field of rights, it assumes the principle of impartiality (named the “principle of citizenship,” because it organizes the fair and legitimate rights of citizens) and, in the field of economics, the principle of difference.
Original Position: This is a scenario that seeks to accurately reflect the principles of justice (liberty and inequality). These principles would be the manifestation of a democratic society, based on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for freedom and concern for reciprocity.
Veil of Ignorance: This is a situation in which no one knows their place in society, their class position or social status, nor does anyone know their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, their intelligence, strength, and the like. Ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to policies that are fair for all. If an individual does not know how they will end up in their own conception of society, they are unlikely to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly.
Principles of Justice
- Principle of Equal Liberty or Impartiality: Everyone has the same right to basic liberties compatible with the rights of others.
- Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
- a) The Principle of Difference: Inequalities should be to the greatest benefit of those in the least advantaged social position.
- b) Equal Opportunity: Positions and charges should be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, based on a meritocratic order. Talents and abilities should have equal access to the same opportunities regardless of social origin.
Utilitarianism vs. Rawls’ Theory
While utilitarianism advocates for the idea of utility, in which the maximum pleasure should reach the most people, and therefore the greatest happiness for the greatest number (even if it means that minority groups do not enjoy the same amount of happiness), Rawls’ theory emphasizes the difference principle, in which the greatest benefit should be provided for those in the least advantaged social position.